potential to backfire. If Western governments try to encourage the growth of domestic institutions and civil society in the Middle East, assuming that such organizations will provide women with an outlet to contribute with their lives and not their deaths, their footprint necessarily has to be imperceptible. If the indigenous population identifies these institutions with Western or American influence, civil society will be undermined from the get-go. The institutions will appear to be puppets of the imperialists and the people who participate in them will be at risk from terrorist groups for their perceived collaboration.
It has been proven that as women become more educated and have fewer children, their rate of development increases exponentially. Women in positions of leadership serve as role models, causing other women to aspire to something more positive than participating in violence. Womenâs participation in the political realm does not necessarily require a secular state in the Islamic world. In Indonesia, for example, womenâs participation is not at odds with Islamic institutions. This means that women are not forced to choose between their religious traditions and modern society when they campaign in elections or run for public office. Having more Islamic women in visible positions of leadership in a traditional context resonates in a way that forcing a Western template on all Muslim women does not. This more culturally sensitive approach to reform requires us to rethink modernity and feminism in a way that allows for the perpetuation of religioustradition and does not require a separation of religion and state in order to be successful.
RECOMMENDATIIONS FROM THE SIDELINES
It is important that scholars share their findings with policymakers, analysts, and members of the military to ensure that they learn the lessons of the past and do not make the same mistakes over and over again. Tel Aviv University psychologist Ariel Merari is often quoted as saying that the terrorism researcher has the obligation to make terrorism known . By this he means it is important that we show terrorism for what it is, and not for what people might imagine it to be. Actual terrorism and counter-terrorism are far removed from their depictions in movies and fiction. Terrorism is mostly dull; there is a lot of waiting around. It is not the thrilling, nonstop roller-coaster ride portrayed in books by writers such as Robert Ludlum or John le Carré or in films featuring imaginary heroes such as James Bond or Jason Bourne. We need to make known, for example, what terrorist organizations are doing to the women of their own community. When terrorists deliberately put women in harmâs way, when they capitalize on womenâs victimization or, even worse, when they abuse women themselves, we have an obligation to advertise their crimes.
More and more examples have emerged of terrorists using coercive techniques to pressure or force operatives to commit heinous acts. We have seen cases of individuals who have been duped and of suicide car bombers (in Iraq, for example) who were unaware that they were on a deadly mission. In several cases, the drivers were told they were taking something, possibly illegal, through checkpoints, only to have the payload detonated from afar with a cell phone or a mobile device. In other cases, peopleâs families have been held at gunpoint and threatened with death and dismemberment unless a family member goes through a checkpoint with acar bomb. Finally, there has been an increasing number of cases in which the operative could not possibly have made the decision to be a bomber because he or she was either too young or mentally incapacitated.
We need to do a much better job of showing what involvement in terrorism is really like. Even among those individuals who believe that suicide attacks (or martyrdom operations) are an appropriate response to occupation or oppression, few support the use of